There's plenty of social media where you can share the news, and whose content might be predominantly driven by it, e.g. Reddit and Twitter.
On the other hand, Facebook was made to be a site for connecting friends and family. Is it really made that much better for anyone other than news media companies to have the news available on Facebook? People have been complaining for years about Facebook's deterioration for its original purpose. If Facebook wants to, for example, shift to promoting more content about users' personal lives and experiences over short-term engagement-maximising ragebait, why should they be stopped? The idea of requiring Facebook to continue acting as an agent of social harm in order to shore up the profits of a few news media companies seems rather perverse.
On the other hand, Facebook was made to be a site for connecting friends and family. Is it really made that much better for anyone other than news media companies to have the news available on Facebook? People have been complaining for years about Facebook's deterioration for its original purpose. If Facebook wants to, for example, shift to promoting more content about users' personal lives and experiences over short-term engagement-maximising ragebait, why should they be stopped? The idea of requiring Facebook to continue acting as an agent of social harm in order to shore up the profits of a few news media companies seems rather perverse.